Yup the game is pretty "snobbified" by alot of people here.
Problem with starcraft despite how good your strategy might be, someone can still beat you with a crap strategy if they can mash keys faster than you, thats why the pro players retire early, while chess pros can go on. People argue about positioning of units such as siege tanks, but this is apparent in many other rts games as well. SC2 is also not completely balanced, if it was, why would they keep changing stats of units in the game with each patch, while these could range from large to incremental, things are still being constantly changed. While Chess is not.

Meh, SC2 only got this consideration as it is popular. Company of Heroes is a game more set towards strategy and tactics then Starcraft.
Starcraft and Chess only share the similarities in which nearly ALL strategy games share. Like others have said, chess is turned based. Speed chest is more similar to starcraft.
Generally speaking, SC is primitive compared to the elements expressed in CoH. And although SC2 and CoH are radically different on the RTS tree, and both have their levels of complexity, simplicity, etc., they don't quite share the same characteristics of chess. Chess is radically different.
However, most competitive RTS games do show significantly more challenging aspects that put them leaps and bounds above chess.

Actually the only game harder than SC2 is its predecessor Broodwar. CoH is a joke compared to starcraft. Because of the way blizzard designed ladder people who get into diamond or masters think they are good at the game when they are utter **** (unless you are masters in Korea maybe).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Versa

Geez, everyone is making out that SC2 is the best RTS there. Not my cup of tea as an RTS fan to be honest.

It is the best after broodwar and could still become better possibly. I used to play C&C for fun as a kid but its so basic compared to the insane depth and difficulty of starcraft. Ive played a lot of different RTS/Strategy games too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adramalech707

I am coming to the understanding that this is a fad and will eventually go away as an argument. Chess has been around a long time and most likely will not go away any time soon. The biggest thing that got me was why did the choose SC2 over any other RTS game out there??? I am thinking either because of its popularity or Blizzard must have done some under the table dealling...
And what doesn't really make sense is that GO (Weiqi) is one of the most intellectually difficult strategy game in the world. Starcraft is just a fade and will pass when the next thing comes along.
Overall, trying to compare a video game with chess as a way to gauge scientific research is absurd. You are comparing apples to oranges. Different strategies required and different brain functions required. Both need memory of previous moves and future moves, but where SC2 requires multitasking, chess requires complete and singular focus. So where one is about speed and multi-tasking to gain more and gain it faster, the other is about focusing on one single problem for lengthy periods of time. There is purpose in both sides of this.
I believe that the scientific study of chess and the human brain is exhausted and that is why they have shifted focus to multitasking and speed performing multiple tasks. Both of which the human brain has a difficult time with, but when one is raised around these two different functions then we see that it becomes easier to do. Such as a child raised playing chess where he can commit intense focus onto a single task, while the millennials, Generation-Y, have been around computers and technology their entire lives. Therefore, they understand and have exercised their multitasking side and can perform many things without much focus on a single task but split over multiple tasks.

SC2 is way harder and requires a much larger skillset and physical demands compared to most other RTS and is still the king of difficulty and more demanding than the rest.

The multiple tasks in sc2 are more of a mechanical requirement and your single task is the same as chess, to outsmart and deceive your opponent to defeat them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by honk_honk

I thought at their cores all RTS games are essentially rock paper scissors, unit A is good against unit B but weak against unit C IMO.

Look at marines. They kill lings and mutas relatively easily. Roaches kill them in small numbers but in larger numbers marines always win. Banelings are supposed to counter marines doing insane damage but splitting and micro and using tanks to pop them make them much less effective than their potential. If you burrow 3 banelings and 30 marines walk over they all die. How effective a baneling vs marine fight is extremely varied by many variables.

Chess will exhaust your brain... SC2 won't. Play the latest Chessmaster games and take the lessons and do the challenges. Decision making and speed are a big part of RTS games but Chess requires logical thinking and analyzing all possible moves before they happen. Again, turn based vs real time , I don't think they should even be compared.
Also there is no economy based micro management in Chess.

SC2 will exhaust your brain and body since its so demanding. Chess is nowhere near as stressful or demanding as starcraft. In Chess and Starcraft one wrong move can mean you lose, except in Starcraft you make thousands of moves and chess you make maybe a few hundred max.

SC2 requires logical thinking and analyzing all possible moves and on top of that you don't ever have complete information. If anything the logic in SC is harder because you fill in the gaps.

Turn based and real time don't really matter because in RTS speed is a skillset. Thats why in tests they time you and solving a problem faster means you are better.

Chess and SC2 both have texbook opening moves that all the pros have memorized. Those moves also have standard counters that the pros have memorized. And the counters have standard counters, and so on . . .
Unless someone makes a mistake early on, it's not until the mid-late game in either chess or starcraft that games become unique.

The textbook openers are all filled with style and individuality of each pro where slight differences make or break the game. Not to mention that there are new strategies being formed constantly where they were practiced in private on a team and revealed for the first time in a tournament. You cant know the counter to something you have never seen before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sausageson

Yup the game is pretty "snobbified" by alot of people here.
Problem with starcraft despite how good your strategy might be, someone can still beat you with a crap strategy if they can mash keys faster than you thats why the pro players of SC retire early, while chess pros can go on,. People argue about positioning of units such as siege tanks, but this is apparent in many other rts games as well. SC2 is also not completely balanced, if it was, why would they keep changing stats of units in the game with each patch, while these could range from large to incremental, things are still being constantly changed. While Chess is not.

See you say we are snobs but you post ignorant nonsense that is flat out wrong. If there was an article about the size of the earth's surface and you would be the guy stating that the earth is flat and you know because you look outside and its straight and how scientists are snobs. Thats how wrong you are but you don't know it, so you say we are snobs or w/e.

Here let me break this down for you. You have a strategy that YOU think is good, but its not. Or you have a strategy that YOU think you are executing well, but are executing it poorly and are completely missing the point of it. Now this strat has worked for a while but you find yourself losing more. So instead of thinking of what you might have done wrong, you need to feed your ego and blame the game, imbalance, the sun and the moon, etc. It must be someone else's fault, there can be no flaws in your play, because you are the best player ever and perfect without training.

Blizzard knows this thats why the dont show losses, give mundane rewards, and have a ladder where everyone wins and they dont keep score, for people like you. You will never be good at starcraft because of your attitude.

Starcraft is very physical and doesnt pay well. Its like playing in the NBA with none of the rewards unless you are consistently at the very tip top. You make less than minimum wage and spend grueling hours playing with a bunch of other guys in a small apartment. It is extremely demanding and requires much sacrifice for the pros to do what they do, and the time demands are insane. Its like an 80hr work almost.

As for seige tanks no has mastered them yet in sc2 and its just one small small aspect of the many different units you have to master in many situations. Positioning matters in every fight not just tanks. And sure other RTS have these tactics but starcraft as a whole is way more demanding of way more skillsets than any other RTS.

SC2 is balanced in all mirror matches on a/symetrical maps. Chess is a mirror match yet White has a clear statistical advantage of 2-5%. And the other matchups are also relatively balanced. The game is a year old not centuries old with way more variables than chess and you expect it to be perfectly balanced? Its amazing how balanced the game is in its infancy.

Actually the only game harder than SC2 is its predecessor Broodwar. CoH is a joke compared to starcraft. Because of the way blizzard designed ladder people who get into diamond or masters think they are good at the game when they are utter **** (unless you are masters in Korea maybe).
It is the best after broodwar and could still become better possibly. I used to play C&C for fun as a kid but its so basic compared to the insane depth and difficulty of starcraft. Ive played a lot of different RTS/Strategy games too.

Please don't be a fanboy and over-exaggerate everything you say.

CoH builds on elements in which takes the macro aspects of an RTS to a minimum. The level of complexity and consideration a player needs to take on the micro scale far outranks that of starcraft. And that isn't an exaggeration. The complexity of starcraft micro goes as far as what we've seen from Slayer_Boxer. Pro CoH players need to take into consideration of armour penetration, acceleration, rate of fire, aiming, deacceleration, weapon reload, accuracy, accuracy while moving, various penetration values depending on range, terrain effects and bonuses, armour deflection, veterancy, armour thickness (frontal, side, rear on every unit), etc. And that is on a per unit scale. Outside of the same aspects each RTS shares on the micro scale, the only micro complexity outside of the norm on starcraft is damage modifiers as seen in the immortals (which, at its core, isn't much different then one of the elements in CoH).

There are a very few pro CoH players out there regardless of the amount of high level players. For as old as the game is, the learning curve surpasses SC2. Even each faction on CoH has such radical differences then the others. Nearly all pro players on CoH micro to the level of what we see from Slayer_Boxer in Broodwar. You can't say that about all high ladder SC2 players.

CnC is very simple; I agree. It is closest style of RTS to SC in unit combat outside of the obvious. Resource management only has a few more elements towards resource gathering then SC, but the micro aspects are much greater and effective on SC. CnC is greatly influenced by rock-paper-scissors mechanics more-so then other RTS. And although all RTS share this aspect, CoH can have moments where all RTS elements are broken in which simply playing your cards right or your APM are not greatly influential factors to winning the game. CoH requires more thought in play.

I'm not saying SC2 is not a serious contender though. But to say what you say is no where near the level of exaggeration.

CoH isn't as linear as SC2; CoH is much more dynamic then SC2. That aspect alone, when you simplify it, is why you would put CoH on top.Edited by Domino - 12/10/11 at 11:23pm

I'm a little appalled at people's reception to this.
The thing about chess is that it's turn based and in the cases of masters, it's about trapping your opponent and misdirecting tactics; it's about making a threat seem real in one area, and then making the true threat/tactic on the other side of the map. Sacrificing pieces and creating holes in a players defense is very common place at the professional level of chess playing. You're not just looking at 2-3 moves ahead. Masters look 10-15 moves ahead to formulate their plan of attack.
With Starcraft II, it's different. First, all actions are made in real time, which means that speed and efficiency of a build come into play. Both of these items are variable and dependent on the player's speed and reaction time. That, by itself, is enough to keep Chess as the defacto mental-stimulation game, as everything in Chess is metered and paced, with both opponents receiving equal number of turns to play the game. If you're not fast in Starcraft II, you will lose at the pro level. Period.
Beyond that, Starcraft II is very much like Chess. Most strategies are about misdirecting your opponents and anticipating tactics. If you can master these areas, you will go very far in online ladders.
There is one area where Starcraft II fails compared to Chess: the human element. If a person isn't able to micro-manage the entire game, they may will more than likely lose. In chess, the only time that sort of element comes into play is during the middle of the game when there are a near infinite number of outcomes and possibilities.
Just keep these items in mind. Starcraft II is about quick reaction and anticipation, where as a good chess game is about pacing and forward thinking. Keep this in mind. As far as I'm concerned, Chess is easier to explain through analysis than Starcraft II, so regardless of what scientists believe, they will have a very difficult time quantifying strategies in starcraft II compared to chess from a traditional mental model.

Not having complete information, speed and dexterity being skills, and having a stressful physical component of time is more like real human activities have generally been for most of the population over time. Being able to sit and contemplate and have all information is a luxury for some humans in this century. There are studies which show that boys learn better through physical manipulation and working with real things compared to just thinking. Plus the fact that stacraft involves more different skillsets and parts of the brain than chess give a better picture of learning and thought than something that is relatively restricted to fewer processes and probably from an evolutionary standpoint not how humans learn for the most part.

your wrong
im a male and i hate hands on type of learning any practical learning i hatethate i prefer theory and using colorful pics and images just get it over and done with
btw chess is a more complex game than starcraft you dont have a clue on what your talking about

Please don't be a fanboy and over-exaggerate everything you say.
CoH builds on elements in which takes the macro aspects of an RTS to a minimum. The level of complexity and consideration a player needs to take on the micro scale far outranks that of starcraft. And that isn't an exaggeration. The complexity of starcraft micro goes as far as what we've seen from Slayer_Boxer. Pro CoH players need to take into consideration of armour penetration, acceleration, rate of fire, aiming, deacceleration, weapon reload, accuracy, accuracy while moving, various penetration values depending on range, terrain effects and bonuses, armour deflection, veterancy, armour thickness (frontal, side, rear on every unit), etc. And that is on a per unit scale. Outside of the same aspects each RTS shares on the micro scale, the only micro complexity outside of the norm on starcraft is damage modifiers as seen in the immortals (which, at its core, isn't much different then one of the elements in CoH).
There are a very few pro CoH players out there regardless of the amount of high level players. For as old as the game is, the learning curve surpasses SC2. Even each faction on CoH has such radical differences then the others. Nearly all pro players on CoH micro to the level of what we see from Slayer_Boxer in Broodwar. You can't say that about all high ladder SC2 players.
CnC is very simple; I agree. It is closest style of RTS to SC in unit combat outside of the obvious. Resource management only has a few more elements towards resource gathering then SC, but the micro aspects are much greater and effective on SC. CnC is greatly influenced by rock-paper-scissors mechanics more-so then other RTS. And although all RTS share this aspect, CoH can have moments where all RTS elements are broken in which simply playing your cards right or your APM are not greatly influential factors to winning the game. CoH requires more thought in play.
I'm not saying SC2 is not a serious contender though. But to say what you say is no where near the level of exaggeration.
CoH isn't as linear as SC2; CoH is much more dynamic then SC2. That aspect alone, when you simplify it, is why you would put CoH on top.

Im not starcraft is just that good. Ive played a lot of RTS and its my favorite genre of game. I played a little company of heroes once but I thought it was boring, I didnt even know it was an RTS at the time.

de/acceleration, rate of fire, aiming of spells, are all in starcraft as well and are involved in stutter step micro and kiting and just general micro. Phoenix vs muta is a good example as mutas have great acceleration and are very agile with a slower attack rate. Phoenix attack quite a bit faster and have more speed but less control over acceleration. So theoretically a phoenix should never get hit by a muta.

Damage modifiers have been in RTS forever including in SC1. Red Alert its obvious infantry take less damage from tanks, and do less damage, etc. In Starcraft there were types of attacks, concussive, normal and explosive and there were small medium and large units which took different damage respectively. Just because it didnt say +20 to armored doesnt meant there werent damage systems. Now the damage system is just +damage to X instead of less damage to Y with no indication on the unit. Combine that with armor and spell effects and you have complexity.

Normal weapons are equally effective against all types of units.
Concussion/Plasma weapons do 50% damage against Medium units and 25% against Large units.
Explosive weapons do 50% damage against Small units and 75% against Medium units.http://classic.battle.net/scc/GS/damage.shtml

I dont see how u can say CoH has more differences as its allies vs axis right? Most units do pretty much the same role with different stats. In starcraft you got masses of bugs, future humans, and super advanced aliens with shields and lazers. Sure in SC2 there is more homogenization especially with maruader, roach, and stalker and viking corruptor but generally the races are extremely different and in their economy and spells are completely unique.

I dont know what you mean by playing your cards right. Starcraft is a game of thousands of actions where a single misclick can end the game on one extreme. For APM sure it needs to be high because speed is a skillset in starcraft. The more moves in a game usually lead to the better player winning which is extremely important.

I didnt even know CoH was played competitively until you posted this either. And I even watched a WCG game but didnt care for it. There is no other RTS that can really stand up to SC2. Stacraft is getting huge and has history, community, and a huge amount of content behind it besides being a great game.